Markandey Katju, J.— This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 25-3-2000 in RFA No. 531 of 1997. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The appellant-plaintiff has alleged that he was carrying the business of commission agent. The defendant was having an areca nut (supari) garden and he used to supply the areca nuts to the plaintiff. The defendant used to receive money from the plaintiff off and on, which the plaintiff used to advance him to secure regular supply of the areca nuts. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed Rs 72,044.43 paise as per the ledger account regularly maintained by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of this amount with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.
3. The defendant denied the plaintiff's case and advanced the plea that the plaintiff was a moneylender and he did not have a licence as required by the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961. Consequently, the defendant alleged that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not taken a licence under the aforesaid Act.
4. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff but the said decree was set aside by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff was not a moneylender as defined in Section 2(10) of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act. The aforesaid Section 2(10) states that a moneylender is one who “carries on the business of moneylending in the State”. Section 2(2) defines the business of moneylending as follows:
“2. (2) ‘business of moneylending’ means the business of advancing loans whether or not in connection with or in addition to any other business;”
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the aforesaid definitions the appellant was clearly a moneylender. We do not agree.
7. It may be mentioned that the purpose of the Act was to prevent the malpractice of oppression by moneylenders to take advantage of people's poverty.
8. In the moneylending business the object of the moneylender is to earn interest on the loan he has advanced. In the present case the object of advancing the loan by the appellant was not to earn interest thereon but to ensure the regular supply of areca nuts. Though, no doubt, interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum was charged on these loans yet that was not the principal object of advancing the loan.
9. In business various methods are adopted by a businessman for ensuring the smooth running of his business. Very often, one of the methods is that the businessman advances money to his supplier of goods to ensure that the supplies are regular and are made to him rather than being diverted to other parties. There is nothing illegal in this practice and it is widespread.
10. When we construe the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act we must see the object for which it was made and we have to adopt the purposive construction.
11. As observed by this Court in New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CST AIR 1963 SC 1207, 1963 Supp (2) SCR 459 (AIR at p. 1213, para 8):
“8. … It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the legislature.”
(See also the decisions mentioned in G.P Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., 2004 at p. 110.)
12. To give an example, under the U.P Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 the lands which were donated by large landholders could be allotted to “landless persons”. It was held by this Court in U.P Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Braj Kishore (1988) 4 SCC 274, AIR 1988 SC 2239 that the expression “landless persons” should be interpreted to mean landless peasants and not landless businessmen. If a literal meaning was given to the expression “landless persons” then even a very rich businessman who possessed hundreds of crores of rupees could claim allotment of a piece of land on the ground that he was a landless person as he owns no land. That could not possibly be the object of the Act. The object of the Act was to give land to landless peasants only.
13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that a purposive interpretation has to be given to the definition of moneylenders. From this angle the appellant could not be said to be a moneylender as he was not really doing the business of moneylending in the strict sense but was only advancing loans to secure the regular supply of areca nuts.
14. In view of the above this appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the trial court is restored. No order as to costs.